Dismissed

Ms Gd Textile Rep by its Prop Piyush Dharamchand Shah v. Hdfc Bank

DRT19 Sept 2025SA/263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II Hyderabad dismissed an application seeking to quash possession proceedings initiated by HDFC Bank. The court found the bank complied with procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act, noting sufficient proof of notice service and affixture, thereby upholding the secured creditor's rights.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; interlocutory applications pending stood closed.

Ms Gd Textile Rep by its Prop Piyush Dharamchand Shah versus… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Securitization Application No.263 OF 2024

¶4

M/s G.D. Textiles

¶5

Rep by its Prop. Piyush Dharamchand Shah Situated at D.No.12-755, Near Govt Area Hospital Pandit Nehru Road, Adoni, Kurnool-s18 301

¶6

Piyush Dharamchand Shah

¶7

S/o Dharamchand Gulab Chand Aged about 50 years, Male R/o H. No.15/386/1B, Victoria^peta Adoni, Kurnool - 518 301

¶8

.......Applicants.

¶9

Versus

¶10

HDFC BanK Ltd Rep by it Authorized Officer situated at H.No.40-5-4A Tikkle Road, Vijayawada-520 010

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Counsel for the Applicants : Mr.D. Ragahavulu

¶13

Counsel for Respondent Bank: Mr. N.B. Sudarshan

¶14

-:ORDER:-

¶15

The Applicants filed the present Securitisation Apptication u/s 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to declare the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank against application schedule property under Sec.13(4) of the Act, 2002 including taking physical possession pursuant to orders in Crl.MP No.106 of 2023 on the fite of tearned Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool in pursuance of possession notice dated 24.72.2022 as illegal, void and arbitrary.

0w**

Pate 2 ot 4

SA No.253/2024

The case of the applicants,^{in brief, is that they availed GECL} loan of Rs.13,98,A40/-^{in 2Ol3 and upgradedto Rs.72 lakhs and loan} is secured by mortgage^{of scheduleproperty. Due to Cpvid-1g} pandemic their cotton^{yarn businesssuffered adversity and hence} unable to^{pay instalments.The applicantspaid Rs'10 lakhs each} subsequent to^{demand noticeand possession noticeand a total of} Rs.96 lakhs was^{repaid till date. Without consider such substantial} payment and without serving^{demand notice,possessionnotice and} without affixing and^{publishing the possessionnotice,the respondent} bank obtained orders^{in Crl.MPNo.106/2023Hence this SA'}

¶20

The respondent^{bank filed reply statementThe submissions'in} brief, are that^{sincethe applicantswere not regularin paymentin} spite of several^{remindersand requests, account becameNPA on} 06.07.2022.^{The demand notice dated 12'09 '2022 u/s 13(2)and} possession notice dated^{24.12.2022 u/s 13(4) were duly served on} applicants besides^{publication and affixtureof possession noticeas} per Rules. Thereafter^{bank approached learned CJM, Kurnoolfor} appointment^{of advocate commissionerto take physical possessionof} secured asset.^{The sA is liable to be dismissed'}

¶21

Representatlve of^{learned counselfor the applicants reported} that orders^{may be passed basedon records'Heard learnedcounsel} for the respondent^{bank.Perused the material brought on record'}

¶22

5, During the^{course of arguments,learned counsel for the} respondent bank^{applicantsreiterated the versionas in the reply} statement.^{Whilerelying on the documents annexed to counterfiled} in IA No.1835/2024,^{learned counselstatedthat an outstanding of} Rs.68,39,376.54^{psand Rs.8,22,459/-was lying in two loan} OY*"*

¶23

Page 3 of4

¶24

SA No.263l2024

¶25

accounts as on 09.09.2022. The respondent bank has followed due procedure of law while proceeding against the secured asset hence SA may be dismissed with costs.

¶26

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶27

i) Whether the applicants made out any valid ground to quash any of the measures of the respondent including taking physical possession of the application schedule property as prayed for?

¶28

ii) To what relief?

¶29

Point No.(i)l

¶30

Admittedly the applicants availed loan facility from the respondent bank against the mortgage of SA schedule property as security and committed default due to business loss. Hence NPA classification cannot be questioned. The respondent bank has placed on record sulficient proof vide documents annexed to counter in IA No.1835/2024 as to service of demand notice and possession notice, and affixture and publication of possession notice. I find absolutely no deviation in the procedure followed by the respondent bank as prescribed in the Act, 2002 and Rules thereunder. The respondent bank being secured creditor is entitled under Sec.14 of the Act, 2002 to approach the competent Court seeking appointment of advocate commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. Hence such legitimate action cannot be interfered with.

¶31

The applicant has utterly failed to make out any valid ground to set aside any of the measure of the respondent under the AcL,2002 against the application schedule property. Accordingly SA is liable to be dismissed.

k'Nq'f

Page 4 of4

SA 0'26312024

Point No.(iil:

In the result, the Securitization^{Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶37

Consequently, Interlocutory^{ApPlicationspending, if any, shall} stand closed.

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

Communicate a^{coPy of this orderto the partiesconcernedand} upload in the official^website.

¶40

(Typed to my dictotion by the PS, conected,^{signed ondprcnouncedby me in theopen court oh this} the 1gh doy^{oJ september,2025).}

¶41

fr$'"'** (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Gd Textile Rep by its Prop Piyush Dharamchand Shah v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Gd Textile Rep by its Prop Piyush Dharamchand Shah v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idfc First Bank Limited "Now" versus Kalisetty Kalyan

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sri Sri Akruthi Projects Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Dhulipudi Venkata Subbarao

M/S. Uco Bank versus Aurora P G College

M/S. Uco Bank versus Aurora Scientific and Technological Institute

Canara Bank versus Magen Roto Printers